Elections Going Under

I've been advised by some to have more of a sense of humour when I write and by others to come at my writing with a baseball bat.  One settles into one's own rhythm and perspective for whatever the subject I might be exploring.  Today it would have to be humorous, priceless, uproarious even, if it wasn't downright objectionable.  I'm somewhere between the baseball bat and the ridicule I suppose.

There's been an ongoing call to explore the constitutions and how they associate, how the three organisations intertwine. There's plenty of material to go with there. Today's subject?  How do some of our appointees become members of the YBRSL Board?
Just one quote from Constitution-land today - (YBRSL)

19.1(b)(iii)'...one person appointed by the interim board of YCL such appointment to be ratified by the first term board of YCL...'

I'm called back, once again, to correspondence coming out of Yeshivah Centre that seems to wave all sorts of red flags on this matter.   A serious concern.

Though it was pretty much understood, it was confirmed on Sunday evening at a Yeshivah meeting for prospective directors (here we go again) that Yeshivah Centre Ltd (YCL) has not yet been registered.   It doesn't exist, it has no Board, it has no members of a Board able to make any appointments to any other Board, (or anywhere else for that matter).  Let's not forget that key piece of information

In correspondence today, (did I say "here we go again?"), Mr Yudi New advised the Yeshivah community of a number of Board appointments to the new boards.  He advised that the 'former Trustees and YCL have finalised their appointments to the boards of CIVL, YBRSL and YCL (when registration is approved).''  I'll note my pleasure at confirmation from Yeshivah, in writing, re my own commentary, that YCL has as yet to be registered.

So what does this offer for the YBRSL Board?  The letter doesn't distinguish who is responsible for placing which individual. We see three listed appointments, not specifically allocated to anyone, whether Trustee or YCL.  Chaim Kingsley, Daniel Houseman and Ayala Bekker, who will presumably fill the three places as allocated in the YBRSL constitution.  Two of them nominated  by the Trustees.  OK, that seems fine enough.  One of them, apparently appointed by the interim board of YCL.  

Now according to the YCL constitution that has been distributed to the community, the YCL Interim board is established for the 'interim period prior to the commencement of the First Term.'  Just for clarity, that's the period prior to the first annual general meeting 'which should take place within three months from the date of registration of the Company...'.   So the Interim Board is very specifically in operation between the Registration of YCL and it's first Annual General Meeting.
Yes, I think we've covered the fact that the Company HASN'T been registered, so there is no  YCL company, much less a YCL Board, interim or otherwise, in existence.  

Which brings us to the point of the exercise.
This is barely a minor matter.
Presumably, the purpose was to wipe the slate clean and transition to accountability and transparency.  Unless the community is provided with a series of names of the individuals who have taken it upon themselves to presume to an authority and role they do not have, in placing individuals into Boards in this fashion, we can all pack up shop and go home.

Personally, I hold the importance of these community elections as momentous.  Nonetheless, they cease to be of any value if it becomes apparent that this is just to be 'more of the same... nameless faces behind closed doors instilling  their preferred choices to maintain their presumptive power to run communal organisations.'  These shameful deeds should have by now been well and truly done, leaving thousands of members of the community, as they have in the past,  disenfranchised.  

The community will not be so easily fooled and deserves to know - Who believes they had the misplaced authority to appoint individuals to community boards in the name of YCL?  Whoever has been involved in this needs to move on.
The time has come and gone for these actions.  This is NOT a question that will go away.

...marcia pinskier 

Royal Commission seeking Further Submissions

When I opened this blog a month ago, I referenced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Case Study 22, which took place in early 2015.  Eighteen months have passed since the case study that examined the history and situation of Yeshivah Melbourne.  Today the Royal Commission issued a Release seeking further submissions about a number of religious institutions, one of those named is Yeshivah.  

It's so disappointing that 18 months down the track Yeshivah continues to be an organisation of interest to the Royal Commission.   That the Royal Commission deems it appropriate that Yeshivah be included in a list of organisations where further submissions and additional public hearings are required.

By now we would have hoped for a Renaissance in governance, policies, in child safety; the Royal Commission appears as yet to be convinced.

The Royal Commission has made it clear that they have a continued interest in factors contributing to child safety and abuse, but before these matters can be resolved, they wish to examine activities and responses of institutions to relevant case studies and case study reports.  

So what have you seen happening in the last 18 months?

I share this media release today because I encourage and support the choice that any individual might make, even at this late stage, to respond to the call of the Royal Commission and and provide a submission with relevant information that would support the work of the Royal Commission and the eventual safety and prevention of child sexual abuse in any religious institution.

...marcia pinskier

Even Less Confidential

What do we want when we think about this Election Process?

Different people will tell you different things.  I'm probably going to keep coming back to the fantasy of an accountable process that rings with transparency.  And if I can't have that, I'll make do with a process being undertaken in line with the constitutions.

But of course we don't all get what we want in life.

I don't know what they are prioritising at Yeshivah when they think about what would make an ideal election process for the community.  As we are all seeing (in the not very confidential) letters and emails, 'Confidentiality and Anonymity' seem to be front and centre in lots of their conversations and correspondence.  They just can't give us enough.   Maybe the problem is that they just can't get any themselves.

We all know that prospective directors were all asked to sign confidentiality agreements and had further emails waved in their faces the day after they did so, threatening them should they breach the anonymity of others who attended the meeting.  

One should ask - did the representatives of Yeshivah sign any confidentiality agreements?  Did Mr Yudi New, Mrs Nechama Bendet, Mr Kagan and Rabbi Smukler put pen to paper?  Should it matter?

Well, I suppose so, in light of the fact that just a little earlier this evening an email came out from the Yeshivah Centre to some 50 recipients.   Recipients of the email were apparently all the prospective directors to date.  All were listed on the 'cc' line and clearly visible to each other.  OK, that seems to qualify as a breach of anonymity.

How could such an event happen in light of the  correspondence from Yeshivah Centre, 28 October, calling for 'an abundance of caution'?  Was this an unfortunate mistake?  Mechanical error?  Conspiracy theory?  Of course what springs to mind is, between conspiracy and incompetence, go for incompetence every time.

Perhaps we should all remember the further words advising that 'should it come to my attention that confidentiality and anonymity has not been maintained, I may need to make a recommendation to the directors in relation to the suitability of that person's candidacy.'

I imagine that the identities of every one of these nominees, whether they go forward or otherwise will be circulating freely by the time I wake up in the morning.  News of the list arrived from multiple directions on my server in a matter of minutes.
I suspect the list will be doing the rounds by the time I sit down to my morning cup of tea tomorrow.  I wonder, while the Director's drink their tea, whether in light of confidentiality agreements and previous correspondence they will be giving consideration to anybody's suitability for the job they might be doing - whether candidates or otherwise?

...marcia pinskier

Prescription for Failure

Following some of the absurdities outlined in my previous blog, I thought I was about done with that meeting.  It turns out there is more of the same as one turns one's eye to the latest piece of mail distributed from Yeshivah following the meetings for prospective Directives. 
Call me naive, (yes, some do), but I consider myself more a cup-half-full person.  I take it as a given that a proper election process should be observed.  Yes, that means lets keep an eye on the election processes as outlined within the constitutions rather than presume that lumbering about with goodwill is a sufficient aspiration. 
In light of the above, cup-half-full as I am, the following Yeshivah correspondence was particularly unpalatable.
My phone began running hot on Friday with calls from attendees at meetings the previous night who had expressed interest in becoming directors.  Further to discussions regarding the Confidentiality Agreements signed at the meetings, there was considerable concern and many queries about the correspondence (below) that had been circulated to all prospective directors Friday afternoon.  

Where does one begin?
Instead of celebrating, acknowledging and thanking the small group prepared to consider a mighty step forward and contribute to a leadership renaissance in the Yeshivah community, what is the first response post-meeting? To send out a letter threatening them with sanctions.
Seriously?

What are those sanctions?  That any individual may have their candidacy vetted and or vetoed on the grounds of a spurious notion of a confidentiality that may have been breached. By the way, one should mention that there has been no formal commitment on the part of any of these candidates as to any organisation they were keeping confidence with!   I'm also fascinated to even begin to imagine how this breach of confidentiality might be determined, (not really because I think the whole business is ridiculous).

Let me give someone, somewhere a hand.  
Take it from me; there isn't a clause to be found in either of the constitutions providing anybody, an individual running the election, a Director an employee or otherwise with any authority to even suggest 'recommendations' be made to Directors regarding the suitability of any prospective candidate's suitability on the grounds of 'confidentiality'.  

The email above is more than a matter of typos, more than an oversight and a missive to be corrected.  It is in instances such as these, no doubt without malicious intent, that elections lose their way and come to be seen as tainted.  

A letter such as this suggests that members of the Boards who have no position in regard to the process of the elections have been interjected in the worst of ways.  To even suggest - as this email did to every single prospective candidate, that members of the current boards would receive recommendations as to possible suitability of candidates going forward can only suggest to the entire Yeshivah community that the Boards would be inappropriately vetting or interfering with nominations, regardless of whether this is the case or otherwise.
Perception can cause huge damage. 

It is a given that many of the current members of this Interim Board will go forward to stand as candidates for the First Term Board.   In good faith they too should be protected from inappropriate suggestions of interference with an independent process.  Such possibilities can damage their own positions and reputations; again if only through error and perception.   For a letter such as this to have gone forward casts aspersions on both individuals as well as the organisation  and corrodes the entire process.

The role of the members of the Boards in the elections is very clear, they have just one crucial responsibility -  to ensure oversight at this delicate time.  

Every document circulated at this time, every event and action that occurs should be empowering the community to take a leap of faith in this new process.   It should empower those who feel sceptical to be re-assured and confident; or at the very least justifiably hopeful and confident in the election processes.  

The sense of stumbling from action to action that a letter such as this reinforces just doesn't cut the mustard and the Yeshivah Community deserve far better. 

...marcia pinskier

Not So Confidential

If the purpose of holding a 'secret meeting' was to ensure it remained 'secret', it certainly seems to have been a spectacular failure.

Meetings were held for those expressing interest in becoming directors for either Yeshivah Beth Rivkah Schools Ltd (YBRSL) or Chabad Institutions of Victoria Ltd (CIVL) on Thursday 28 October, but perhaps they didn't go quite as planned.

Sources who attended either meeting reported receiving correspondence advising that they would be required to sign Confidentiality Agreements and that their Expression of Interest would remain confidential.  At the meetings, considerable emphasis was placed on the respect required for the anonymity of all present.  This was of course thoughtful of those planning, but perhaps not sufficiently so.   It was widely known where and when the meetings were held, a room where all passers-by could observe through the glass windows who was present.  It was also noted that as the meeting for those interested in YBRSL was held immediately prior to the CIVL meeting, anyone at either meeting could note who had 'expressed interest' to serve on the alternate Board.  

As requirements of anonymity had only applied to those present in their own meeting - individuals are free to discuss those they may be aware are standing for an alternate Board, should they wish to do so.  Perhaps a little less fuss directed at prospective directors and a little more attentiveness to the task at hand on the part of Yeshivah Body Corporate would have been beneficial.

Then of course there was the matter of the Confidentiality Agreement that attendees were requested to sign.  While I've been banging on about my own distaste for unnecessary surreptitiousness painted as appropriate confidentiality, (see OPEN THE DOORS from 25 October), several of the attendees have indicated that they had no issue signing because the Agreement seemed to have been designed with little care.  It has been suggested to me several times that the document  would have little value as it didn't appear to be an agreement between any two specific parties.

There was considerable fuss (universal from those I've spoken to) as to how one can present an information meeting for Directors with no-one presenting on the subject of Governance.  People from the YBRSL meeting had much to say regarding the lack of planning and  regard for their own time as they didn't receive adequate (any??) information about the process, role, requirements and commitments of being a Director.

Perhaps the hottest issue that flew out of the meeting from all of the people who contacted me was the question as to why Mrs Nechama Bendet attended the meetings.  This seems to be a source of great controversy and apparently a number of individuals were not too happy to see her there.    Several reported her presence as inhibiting discussion.  The word of her attendance has certainly spread well beyond those who were in the room.  Some have suggested she may have an interest in serving as a Director for one or both organisations.  

When the Trustees committed to stand down from the previous Yeshivah legal entities, as many understood, it was a given that a commitment was made to the community that they would stand back from any leadership/governance space in the future.

Past Trustee, Rabbi Chaim Tzvi Groner has now undertaken a probable life-tenure on the Boards of all organisations.    

Perhaps Mrs Bendet is considering whether she may be approaching the end of her employment at Yeshivah and as a Trustee she too would also like to move up to a seat on one of the Boards?    Of course, to do so, Mrs Bendet would be required to step away from employment with the organisation, in line with constitutional requirements.   

We await with interest to see all those listed on the election candidacy lists. 

...marcia pinskier

Open the Doors

In a community with a long-term history of actions taken place behind closed doors,  of power-brokers rotating and containing their accommodations among their colleagues so as to both continue to enjoy and protect their seats at the table and of questionable decisions made with inadequate ventilation - it's no surprise that a culture of excessive if not bizarre seclusion prevails.

A new leaf is being turned and many desperately seek to experience fresh airs blowing in the window.   Old hands however, continue to intimate that the actions of stealth and secrecy, of hoarding information and individuals in a room, offer the suggestion of a healthy privacy.

A number of people who have expressed a preliminary interest in undertaking a role as a Director of one of the new Yeshivah legal entities have been invited to a meeting to hear something of the role of a Director this week.  I congratulate these individuals who have put their hands up at this stage.  They have shown a commitment to their community, their school, their children (if they're parents), their Shule and other communal institutions.  In every way they've stepped up to participate and one can only wish them well.  

As someone who knows something of the steps one takes prior to taking a position on any Board, I was at the very least dismayed, if not alarmed,  to hear that invitees have been asked to sign a document of confidentiality regarding their attendance at this evening.  I have no idea  why they are being asked to sign such a document, what exactly it might contain - but regardless, here is perhaps just the one reason why all attendees should graciously hand it back without signing.    

Any prospective director, EVERY prospective director should do an element of Due Diligence prior to taking a seat on a Board, most absolutely one the size and complexity of Yeshivah at this stage of development.    This might begin with having a conversation with someone to find out just WHAT information you should seek.  It might entail taking further advice regarding the information you have received from the organisation.    With an organisation such as Yeshivah it might well include a trip to your own lawyer with some Yeshivah constitutional documents (professional advice would be an absolute if you are not on top of this sort of material) and other materials or information that you might carry out of a prospective directors meeting such as the one being held this week.  It would not be implausible to include consideration and advice on 'the team' of fellow directors; knowing that you had appropriate, able and suitable colleagues with the right mix of skills as well as suitable values and ethics at the Board with you.  One doesn't know what one will see or hear so one doesn't know what one will feel the need to be able to independently follow up on.

It would be a wonderful, wonderful idea for the organisation to have an Open Forum,  the step they seem to have altogether missed, to engage as many of the community and discuss the preliminary commitments and requirements of the role of a Director.  A meeting not only for those who have submitted Expressions of Interest early in the timeline, because with some general information many more members of the community could hear something further and consider stepping forward. The time commitments, something of the legal responsibilities, the various undertakings involved in being a Director.  It just doesn't make sense to limit information and opportunities to a select few and be holding another gathering with the sour suggestion of stealth or secrecy.  

So to begin a first meeting with a confidentiality requirement?  Whether this requirement is going to bind attendees from discussing others who are present, or whether it is going to limit them in how they engage with any of the information in the room on the evening - this is the wrong amount of information at the wrong forum.  And definitely the WRONG intent to have those who come along put pen to paper.

This meeting has once again been painted with the colours of with-holding any information from escaping from beyond the room.  It re-iterates the culture of the gravest of problems for Yeshivah.  When does the with-holding stop?  Who is making these decisions?

Thousands, yes thousands of the members of this community, were for decades unable to access the constitutions that governed their lives and it was only as they became Exhibits at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that we saw them posted  on-line and accessible to all.

While on the subject of both constitutions and cessation of withholding.  

It's a given that as part of due diligence eventual directors will read the Yeshivah Constitutions.  Whether interested in YBRSL or CIVL there is an important relationship to YCL - any prospective director needs to be reading all three constitutions and taking independent advice.

Though the Yeshivah Centre Ltd Constitution has not yet been registered, it stands to reason that a Final Draft is sitting in a filing cabinet somewhere - perhaps many Final Drafts in various filing cabinets.  One just has to be lucky enough to have such a filing cabinet in your home or office.  That being said - with the release of the Chabad Institutions of Victoria Ltd Constitutions and the Yeshivah Beth-Rivkah Schools Ltd Constitution it seems imperative that as part of this process at the very least one such filing cabinet needs to be unlocked and a Final Draft needs to be released to the community and prospective directors.

I hope that those who attend the upcoming meeting have a thought-provoking and valuable meeting.  I hope, I urge them to all begin the meeting by assuring those presenting on behalf of Yeshivah that the days of stealth are done, that the days of trust are here.  I hope as one, that attendees all agree that there is no need to be signing confidentiality documents.

...marcia pinskier

Why be a Member?

The privilege of membership lies in the Right to Vote.

As matters stand, parents of the Yeshivah and Beth-Rivkah schools are being urged to join the new organisation, however the many parents who may be in arrears with their payments or financial agreements will have no voting rights as part of their membership.  
What will they have that's really of value?
   
I am yet to be convinced that without the privilege of voting membership, there is a purpose to joining any organisation, other than providing your name to fatten the organisation's  membership roll. 

I probably don't have to write very much more, (though of course I will), because from my perspective, the beginning and the end of why one chooses to become a member overwhelmingly sits with Voting Rights.  

One chooses to become a member because one believes in the purpose and ethos of an organisation.   With the right to vote one becomes part of the heart of the organisation.  Even at a grass-roots level, leadership will always be accountable to you.

Not for Profit (NFP) organisations have various structural arrangements.  Despite  variations, one tends to see two core kinds of membership structures:

MODEL ONE - The Board / Committee of Management are the only members of the organisation.   This small core of people might be running an enormous organisation; a school, social club, sports club, religious organisation, cemetery board, cultural institute  or any other organisation that services thousands, tens or even hundreds of thousands of members of the community.

A  variation might be where as Board members come to the Board they become members, but remain members with diminished authorities when they leave the Board.  Either version will see a smallish core of people  running a community organisation of any size with possibly huge numbers of stakeholders having little if any voice in how the organisational decisions are that may effect them are made.  

You can have the best skilled and most appropriate people sitting on a Board such as this but there are always going to be dilemmas with this model.  This is because, these Boards have no organisational membership to which they are accountable.  The members of these Boards are accountable to neither the thousands of stakeholders, nor the broader community they may serve.  For all their efforts to influence a Board's actions, (and they do have some influence) - they are not part of a membership body, any one of whom may hold a Board to account through the unique power of their individual membership and vote.

Looking to decades past, we've see variations of the model outlined above having been practiced in the Yeshivah leadership space.

MODEL TWO - An organisation where membership is generally open to those who support the purposes,  meet the criteria and are admitted through a process as laid out in the constitution.  Overwhelmingly, the common practice is that unless for some particular (and unusual reason) a member may have been suspended or expelled - e.g. for such actions as bringing the organisation into disrepute - the most significant privilege of membership is the right to vote.  With the right to vote comes all other rights; the right to determine who should participate in the governance/leadership group, to participate in special resolutions which may direct the course of the organisation.   The right to speak at general meetings and the right to receive notice of such meetings and business scheduled.  The right to examine the Registry of Members, General Meeting minutes (and Board minutes if public) and appropriate documents.

All other rights of membership are generally aligned with the right to vote, because this is paramount and the priority.

Looking to the future, one would hope to see this right finally and universally extended in an unfettered fashion, to all members of the Yeshivah Beth-Rivkah parent community who choose to become members of Yeshivah Beth-Rivkah Schools Ltd.  

As matters stand, why be 'subject' to a Board, if the Board need not be accountable to you?   

What is the value of your dignity as a member - if your organisation will not dignify you, will not dignify all it's members, with the most common, the most crucial and the most substantial of membership rights; the right to vote?

...marcia pinskier